## Facts

- Two Kentucky counties posted large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses in prominent, high-traffic locations.
- After suit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an Establishment Clause violation, the counties adopted resolutions stating the Commandments were Kentucky’s “precedent legal code” and citing religiously oriented references, including acknowledgments of Christ as the “Prince of Ethics.”
- The counties implemented three display versions:
  - A stand-alone Ten Commandments posting (King James Version with an Exodus reference).
  - A revised display surrounding the Commandments with eight smaller historical documents; religious references were their common feature.
  - A later “Foundations of American Law and Government Display” of nine equal-sized framed items, including a Ten Commandments frame identified as the King James Version with added text asserting its influence on Western legal thought; other frames included documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Star-Spangled Banner with explanatory commentary.
- The counties did not repeal the earlier religiously oriented resolutions and did not pass new resolutions authorizing the final “Foundations” display.
- The district court enjoined the first and second displays and expanded the injunction to the third, finding the asserted educational purpose not credible in light of the displays’ history.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding the displays’ context and progression showed an impermissible religious purpose.

## Issues

1. Whether the Ten Commandments courthouse displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
2. Whether courts may assess governmental purpose in Establishment Clause cases and consider a display’s history and evolution when evaluating asserted secular purposes.
3. Whether the Court should modify or abandon Lemon v. Kurtzman’s framework, including its “purpose” inquiry, for religious-display cases.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Souter.
- The Court held the displays violated the Establishment Clause because their predominant purpose was to advance religion.
- The Court held that governmental purpose is a proper basis for Establishment Clause adjudication and that courts may consider the sequence of events and changes to the display when determining purpose.
- The Court declined to abandon Lemon’s purpose inquiry and treated the counties’ stated objectives as assessable through an objective, reasonable-observer lens informed by context and history.

## Legal Principles

- Government action violates the Establishment Clause when its predominant, objectively ascertainable purpose is to advance religion.
- Purpose analysis is permissible and may be dispositive; courts may evaluate purpose by examining the full context, including a practice’s history and evolution and official statements surrounding its adoption and modification.
- Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, a government display must have a genuine secular purpose; post-litigation modifications do not cure an Establishment Clause violation when the overall history shows a continuing religious objective.
- Ten Commandments displays are presumptively religious; they require genuine integration into a secular presentation, not the addition of surrounding materials selected or presented in a way that signals religious endorsement.
- The relevant viewpoint is that of a reasonable, informed observer; if that observer would perceive governmental endorsement of religion based on context and history, the Establishment Clause is violated.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the counties’ evolving courthouse Ten Commandments exhibits remained unconstitutional because their history, official justifications, and presentation would lead a reasonable observer to conclude the counties were pursuing a religious objective, and courts may consider that history when assessing claimed secular purposes under the Establishment Clause.


McCreary County v. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005)